Almost no Test career average does a career justice, because very few players have remained broadly the same all career. Even those not-all-that-common cases who were Test-standard from first game to last (ie, no premature elevation, no early period of struggling to make the step up, no serious mid-career trough, and no downtime at the end) usually had some periods where they were really good and some where they were less good.

Broadly speaking, someone who talks about "an average doesn't do him justice" in reality means either "he underperformed" (broadly I think that's the case with Aravinda) or "he looked better than he was" (there are a great many of these).

In the case of WG Grace, of course, his career First-Class average doesn't begin to demonstrate to a modern, naive audience how dominant he was. His Test average, to those who know their stuff, is pretty much worthless, not merely because Test cricket in his day was not of extraordinary importance, but because he played most of his Test career at an age past what is now normal retirement age. He, however, is an exception - a player who played a different game whose fame is so great that many who understand nothing of the game he played still know his name.

Players from pre-WW1 tended to have lower batting and bowling averages across the board. WG Grace is a particularly good example, and partly for the reasons given by Richard. I also suspect that some bowlers of that sort of era (Barnes, Lohmann etc) are quite seriously flattered by their averages, at least when those averages are seen through modern eyes.

Of recent times, Martin Crowe is one who stands out. A batting average in the mid-40s doesn't adequately reflect what a magnificent player he was. Although I see the force in Richard's point that this must mean either that Crowe underperformed or that he wasn't as good as he looked.

Players from pre-WW1 tended to have lower batting and bowling averages across the board. WG Grace is a particularly good example, and partly for the reasons given by Richard. I also suspect that some bowlers of that sort of era (Barnes, Lohmann etc) are quite seriously flattered by their averages, at least when those averages are seen through modern eyes.

It's less a case of pre-WW1, and more of pre-1900, as I understand it. There was a big change in pitch-preparation capability in, in fact, the very turn-of-the-century year (the upping in scoring 1899-1900 was greater even than the change which took place in a two-year spurt from 2000 to 2002). There was no particularly significant difference in scoring, as I understand it, in, say, 1909 and 1924 - in fact, the Golden Age (1900-1913) was famous for the free-flowing amateur batsmanship which would simply not have been possible under conditions which had prevailed in the 19th-century.

It was 1930 when, once more, decks experienced a flattening-out. The cessation caused by WW2 then seemed to perk things up and when cricket resumed in the 1940s it was more recogniseable for what it had been in the '00s and '20s (and what little of the '10s survived the War).

Hence, I'm quite open to the suggestion that Lohmann's excellence is incomparable with excellence of modern bowlers - we honestly do not, to my mind, have a clue how good he might have been, IMO. He could've been in the Marshall-Imran-Donald-Lillee-Hadlee class; he could've been less than Dominic Cork or Alan Connolly. We just don't know. Barnes, however, is an entirely different matter - I've always maintained that there is enough evidence of Barnes being pre-eminent over any other bowler ever to have picked-up a ball, though it is almost certainly my greatest regret that he was never handled in such a way that would have allowed him to show such unequivocally.

Of recent times, Martin Crowe is one who stands out. A batting average in the mid-40s doesn't adequately reflect what a magnificent player he was. Although I see the force in Richard's point that this must mean either that Crowe underperformed or that he wasn't as good as he looked.

Crowe's case simply shows that a career average is a pretty meaningless thing. He was picked far too early and was ruined by injuries to his knees at a far younger age than most are. IIRR, he averaged about 54 for what still made-up the bulk of his career, which seems to do far more justice to what most seem to reckon was his capability.

Almost no Test career average does a career justice, because very few players have remained broadly the same all career. Even those not-all-that-common cases who were Test-standard from first game to last (ie, no premature elevation, no early period of struggling to make the step up, no serious mid-career trough, and no downtime at the end) usually had some periods where they were really good and some where they were less good.

That's why it's called an average though.

Originally Posted by flibbertyjibber

Only a bunch of convicts having been beaten 3-0 and gone 9 tests without a win and won just 1 in 11 against England could go into the home series saying they will win. England will win in Australia again this winter as they are a better side which they have shown this summer. 3-0 doesn't lie girls.

I find it funny that folks say that such and such stat don't justice, why so ? It is a record of what they scored on the field, this is what they were capable of and that is what they deserve. Not one less not one more.

Matthew Hayden - Should be slightly higher (53-54 instead of 50)
Kevin Pietersen - Should be allot higher (55-56 instead of 48-49)
Mahela Jayawardene - Should be allot lower (low 40's instead of mid 50's)
Mark Waugh - Should be higher (mid-high 40's instead of low 40's)
Mohammad Yousuf - Should be allot lower (mid-low 40's instead of mid 50's)
Virender Sehwag - Should be slightly lower (mid 40's, not 50+)
Michael Slater - Should be slightly higher (atleast in the mid 40's)
Michael Clarke - Should be slightly lower (not a 50+ average batsman imo)
AB de Villiers - Should be allot higher (Good enough to average 50+)
Dean Jones - Should be higher (On footage, his one of the best bats out of the 80s era .. deserves to average 50+)

I find it funny that folks say that such and such stat don't justice, why so ? It is a record of what they scored on the field, this is what they were capable of and that is what they deserve. Not one less not one more.

Matthew Hayden - Should be slightly higher (53-54 instead of 50)
Kevin Pietersen - Should be allot higher (55-56 instead of 48-49)
Mahela Jayawardene - Should be allot lower (low 40's instead of mid 50's)
Mark Waugh - Should be higher (mid-high 40's instead of low 40's)
Mohammad Yousuf - Should be allot lower (mid-low 40's instead of mid 50's)
Virender Sehwag - Should be slightly lower (mid 40's, not 50+)
Michael Slater - Should be slightly higher (atleast in the mid 40's)
Michael Clarke - Should be slightly lower (not a 50+ average batsman imo)
AB de Villiers - Should be allot higher (Good enough to average 50+)
Dean Jones - Should be higher (On footage, his one of the best bats out of the 80s era .. deserves to average 50+)

Hayden - probably not that high about right as it is
Pietersen - no way
Mahela - no way
Waugh - yeah
MoYo - yeah
Sehwag - no way
Slater - meh
Clarke - possibly
AB - he'll get there eventually